As I've said many times, no. We don't need a situation where a large number of Senators are lame ducks for six years.
Care to define what the effects of such a situation would be, policywise? Some of us might not see that as a bad thing.
I'm strongly opposed to term limits in all instances. We have term limits already. They're called elections. Most modern industrialized first-world nations seem to do just fine without arbitrary term limits. It's my view that the 22nd Amendment should be repealed.
Yup, precisely. There's not a good argument for why voters should be prohibited from exercising their choice if their choice happens to be an incumbent who's been there "too long," for some arbitrary definition of too long.
Do not make a sanctimonious stand for the "voters' choice" here. Seniority just means more time to become chummy with special interests and influential members of congress (who have also been there forever) so as to procure more pork for the district/state. It's a false choice between a challenger who opposes public graft (but is in little position to change the system by himself) and an incumbent who supports it, but at least guarantees that his district will not be entirely shafted in the process.
